Welcome

Welcome

Readers write here

READERS MAY LOG IN AND CONTRIBUTE THEIR IDEAS HERE. WE WELCOME SUGGESTIONS AND CRITICISM. WE WANT TO GROW.
THOSE WHO WANT TO WRITE, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTRIBUTE IN THE SPACE PROVIDED. IT WILL HELP IF YOU CAN PLEASE MENTION YOUR E MAIL ID, SO THAT READERS CAN ALSO DIRECTLY COMMUNICATE WITH FELLOW PENSIONERS.

Name:
Email:
Website:
Subject:
Icon:
Message:
 
Antispam:
Captcha-Frage:
Which images shows the color light brown?
 

There are 1203 entries available on

< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 >

N.Subramanian (Website) wrote at 29-06-2014 5:03 pm:

 Pensioners' loan
Sir What is the interest rate charged on the demand loan granted to us by way of demand loan recovered EMI ? The interest rate appears to be high.
 

P K GOPALAKRISHNAN (Website) wrote at 27-06-2014 11:32 am:

 Eduction Loan - Retired Staff
Dear Sir,
Apropos the letter appearing in your website I wish to inform the writter
that when I represented the issue in my own case in 2009 CGM of Kerala Circle turned down my request for concessional interest rate on ETL Retd Staff on the plea that Bank wnts to discourage retired employees from availing loans of any kind.Pension is paid for comfortable living of employee and spouse.By aviling loans instalments have to be paid out of pension amount.As such the employee has suffered much by way of heavy deductions and loan recoveries while in servicce.In the interest of the retired employee it is better not to avail further loans for wards in their life's fag end. Hence the strict rule by hte Bank not to extend any concessionary interest to retired staff for loan. Strange indded
P K Gopalakrishn
Retd SBI Officer
Kerala Circle
 
Comment: Dear Mr. Gopalakrishnan,
You are right that it is very unfair to pensioners, when Bank treats us differently from the serving employees, specially in regard to loans, interest rates, etc.

Let us hope and strive to remove these glaring anomalies.

MENINO FURTADO wrote at 24-06-2014 2:43 pm:

 PAYMENT OF RESIDUAL P.F. ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASE IN PF INTEREST RATES :
I am a retired SBI Pensioner from Madgaum, Goa. I go through your website often and find it very attractive with latest information. I have read the above mentioned news item recently. Please let me know the source of this news as nobody seems to be aware here. It would be nice if you could forward a copy of our Bank`s Circular in this regards.

Wish you all the best, Thanks.
 
Comment: Dear Menino,
Welcome to our site and thanks for your appreciation.
No circular has been issued, but CC has advised all LHO PPGs to arrange for payment of residual PF fund o/a interest increase. Please contact your Circle's PPG Deptt and the Br/office from where you had retired, if you are eligible.

Shishir Kar (Website) wrote at 24-06-2014 12:13 pm:

 e-filing of IT Return
I filed my Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2014-15 using the taxspanner site as given in the online sbi site and found it very easy and useful. Any word on this by any of our fellow pensioners.

Shishir Kar
 
Comment: Dear Shishir,
Thanks for sharing this useful information.

R.Viswanathan wrote at 24-06-2014 10:56 am:

 Educational Loan - Retired staff
The State Bank of India is charging high rate of interest for educational loan sanctioned to the Retired staff. While the working staff of S.B.I. have to pay 8% interest, the retired staff are paying at public rate of interest i.e. more than 13%. Are the Retired Employees getting pension more than the working staff salary.The management should show humanitarian towards retirees who have worked sincerely towards betterment of the
Institution. The S.B.I. pensioner Assn
is requested to take up the matter with the
Management.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Viswanathan,
You are right. We pensioners deserve many facilities. Our Federation is constantly trying to enhance the areas of relief for pensioners. Medical benefits are increasing. Let us see what emerges in other areas.

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 19-06-2014 7:53 pm:

 7th.BPs
Admin.-Your comment of the 13th.June 2014 on the post of Sri A.R.Chandrasekharan.I believe that there is no confusion on my identity because the font used by me is different from that of the Admin.Everyone posting their views on this site are aware of each others identity as pensioners.The font of the Admin. is different from that of the pensioners.We also expect the Admin. in being fair in removing posts from this site and being impartial which I believe you would like to be without any bias towards anyone.This site is a great boon for the SBI pensioners,lonely and sometimes alone as they are.Let us all keep it unpolluted ,without bias or partiality.Sujoy Ghosh
 
Comment: Dear Sujoy,
You will kindly appreciate, as would others, the need to keep this site fair, impartial and free from controversial posts. Hence some posts may have to be edited or removed.

V V Ramachandran wrote at 19-06-2014 9:38 am:

 TDS
CSPPC has deducted tax on my pension in Apr this year;true tax rules state that tax to be deducted based on last year income [I have submitted tax plan to avoid tax that year];it is imperative to note TDS to be effected once the income for that Fin year exceeds the limit and or no savings plan has been uploaded before that period. Could you please take up the issue with them
 
Comment: Dear Mr Ramachandran,
We suggest that you involve your local Association and the Branch involved, in your effort to seek a remedy. If the tax deducted has already been deposited by the Branch to the Govt,. you will have to seek a refund from the Income tax authority, while submitting your I Tax return.

A.R,Chandrasekharan (Website) wrote at 18-06-2014 5:27 pm:

 Email ID
Dear Sir,

I regret for the omission in the ID and give the correct one (arcsekhar09@gmail.com) I also suggest that every sender should give his ID so that direct contact could be easy to appreciate the posts.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Chandrasekharan,
We have acted upon your suggestion, and have requested readers to mention their e mail ids. in their posts. We have made this request at the top of the page. Thanks for your suggestion.

A.R.Chandrasekharan (Website) wrote at 18-06-2014 1:51 pm:

 Sender's Email ID
Dear Sir,

A suggestion. It will be much appreciated if you could kindly give the Email ID of the sender along with his name so that any one who wants to thank him will be directly doing it without using the web site. Some good suggestion needs appreciation.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Chandraekharan,
The senders' email ids are available to us, in the posts sent. We suggest that the readers insert their email ids in their posts.

R PARTHASARATHY wrote at 17-06-2014 8:47 am:

 7th Bi-partitie SBI Pensioners
Dear Sir,

The positive trend is obvious with the change in the government at the Centre. The IBA also has become pro active as it has sent a proposal for 100 percent DA neutralisation to the Government.
If we get a favourable verdict from the Division Bench at Calcutta, the Bank will not go for an appeal again, most probably. Hence, we request Mr.Salil Ghosh to focus on the case.
Pension updation: IBA is apprehensive. It is not clear whther their apprehension is based on concrete data. It will be helpful if the UFBU comes out with the cost aprticulars. Also, the IBA and the Government should be made to realise that they can avoid a situation when they will have to pay huge arrears in case the Pensioners" cases are favourably decided upon. We feel that updation with effect from the Xth Bipartite settlement date will bury past litigation and soothe the heartburns of the harassed Bank Pensioners.
 

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 15-06-2014 9:41 am:

 7th.BPs
Mr.Chavan-Please read'your'instead of 'you' as the first word.Sujoy Ghosh
 

Rohit Sharma. wrote at 14-06-2014 9:00 pm:

 7th B.P. V.R.S.
1. This is the only pensioner's website that is so actively responding to the cause of the pensioner. In past too Bengal Circle has been the torch bearers of the award staff federation and the sup. staff association. I am much indebted to the promoters of this website to have the pensioners informed of all the developments.
 
Comment: Dear Rohit,

Thanks for your appreciation. We shall also appreciate constructive criticism, but not beyond that.

N.Subramanian (Website) wrote at 14-06-2014 8:46 pm:

 7th BP isssue
A well-said and well clarified reply to Mr Chavan's views expressed in the above context. All the aggrieved retirees's minds are occupied only by this issue and their only hope everyday when they wake up in the morning is whether they will hear any consoling news regarding their pension issue atleast today and when they will get justice and when their sufferings and mental agony will come to an end. This is the only platform where they can ventilate their feelings which is shared by many who are similarly placed. Therefore there is no surprise that this particular website devoted to the READERS our Bank Pensioners is flooded with posts which I would say not enormous compared to the number of the affected. Regarding the other petty issues/problem faced by them there are Pensioners Assn in each circle where they go for help and so many other issues or views get clarified during the pensioners meetings organised by the pensioners assn in each circle. You will see a substantial drop in such posts once the issue get settled. As correctly pointed out elsewhere the site should not be used for slandering and for finding fault and blaming others. I am very happy for the apt reply given by Shri Sujoy.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Subramanian,
We are fellow sufferers. We fully empathize. We are glad that our website has become an ideal platform for pensioners to debate and express their views and feelings. It will be sad if the number of posts drop, for whatever reason. Please keep writing.

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 14-06-2014 6:56 pm:

 7th.BPs
Mr.Chavan-you post of 14.06.2014-I appreciate your feeling about the posts on this site which are also from the deprived/denied and discriminated against 7th.BPs and those of the 5th.and 6th.BPs who have been treated in a more beggarly fashion by the Bank/GOI.I wonder whether I have anything else to share with others in this state of mind at,least at this moment of agony except to share it with others on this common platform without giving them any cause for any umbrage.Once I get my dues,if at all, effective date of retirement I will definitely respond differently.I,and maybe some others similarly placed want to move a greater body of persons,the Penfed,to highlight our situation.The 50% issue is neither here nor there because it may not be effective from the dates of our retirements.So Mr.Chavan and the site Admin.,kindly bear with us.Sujoy Ghosh
 
Comment: Dear Sujoy,
We in the Assocn, are not outsiders. We are fellow sufferers. We share your feelings and empathize with you. All that we have stated is that we should have faith in the collective strength of 14 Assocns and our Federation, instead of submitting individual representations. Please keep writing.

N. J. CHAVAN VICE PRESEDENT SBI PENSTIONERS ASSOCTION PUNE UNIT KOLHAPUR wrote at 14-06-2014 8:23 am:

 PENSTIONERS WEBSITE
I AM REALY DISAPPOITED DURING THE LAST 15 DAYS DUE TO THE PRESENTATIONS MADE /UPLODED IN THIS SIT THE REVISTIN OF PENSTION IS ONE OF THE ISSUE OF THE PAENSTIONERS BUT IT IS NOT AT ALL DURING LAST 15 DAYS ALL ABOUT PENSTION REVISTION AND COMMETS THERE ARE SOMANY GOOD THINS FOR PENSTIONERS TO SHARE THEIR EXPERINCE IN THE QUALITY OF LIFE ANDGOD INFORMATION THE SITE SHOULD NOT GIVEN MUCH MORE IMPORTANCE FOE PENSTIOIN RELATED ISSUESAND SHOULD HAVE DECOREM
 
Comment: Dear Mr Chavan,

We share your disappointment. Unfortunately, we have no control over the type or quality of posts submitted to this website. We can, at best modify or delete some posts, which violate norms of decorum. Moreover, as this is the official website of our Association, we can only furnish the collective views of our organization. However, of late, we have been receiving some posts, which are intended to settle personal scores, or voice resentment against some particular leaders of the Association/Federation.
We have repeatedly clarified that this website should not be used for settling individual scores. Criticism is welcome, but not unhealthy ones.
Please keep writing.

N.Subramanian (Website) wrote at 13-06-2014 12:16 pm:

  Website communication
Previous to my communication I saw a message regarding certain pension rules for the removal or objecting to those provisions a prayer has been filed with Delhi Hc by our PENFED but when I came back to view that message in the Website it was not there perhaps you would have removed it from the site. I/most of the pensioners may not be aware or may not be knowing the implications. Can You say a few words about it? Sorry to bother With regards SUBRAMANIAN
 
Comment: Dear Mr Subramanian,
The post was removed as people shouldnt use this site for slandering. This site welcomes criticism but not slandering.

N.Subramanian (Website) wrote at 13-06-2014 11:33 am:

 7th BP
Sirs I am of the strong view that revision of pension to 50% of the average pay drawn during the immediately preceding 12 months before retirement as being fought for and being claimed by PENFED uniformly for all the pensioners irrespective of the BP agreements by which the pensioners are covered is absolutely in order for 2 reasons: 1. The pension rules provide for it No2. The Bank in 2002 has in its proposal to Government recommended for revision of pension to 50% on which the Govt has not acted upon. The bank would not have recommended unless it falls within the frame work of SBI Pension Rules and if they had not had the conviction that the pensioners' demand is genuine . Then why the shift to the 50%/40% formula-- Govt's interference and there also the Govt prevented the Bank from extending the revision to persons retired before Oct. 2002. There should be no compromise on this issue i.e 50% pension as PENFED has already taken a stand and if we back out at this stage on no point of time in future we can approach either the Bank or Govt for 50% pension which will be detrimental not only to all the existing pensioners but will be carried over to the coming generation of pensioners..However if PNEFED is not able to succeed in their efforts let us accept the decision as there would be no other alternative. One more favorable point in our favor is sanction of family pension on 7th BP scale to the spouse of the retirees deceased drawing pension on 6th BP scale which is absolutely illogical.That does'nt mean I am against it but am quite happy about it for it adds one more positive point to put forth during presentation of our issues before the Govt during the joint meeting.
Highly hopeful of a positive ending of this game which is being played for long and wishing for a early favorable solution for the pensioners. With best regards.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Subramanian,
We agree with your considered views and appreciate the feelings behind it.

A.R.Chandrasekharan (Website) wrote at 13-06-2014 9:25 am:

 Appreciation
Dear Mr.Sujoy,

I appreciate your reply to Mr.Gudi, Aand thank you. ARC
 
Comment: Dear Mr Chandrasekharan,
You may be under the impression that Shri Sujoy Ghosh is administering this website. He is not. He is a pensioner friend of our Association, and is very actively concerned with issues concerning pensioners, specially the 7th Bipartite injustice.

A.R.Chandrasekharan (Website) wrote at 13-06-2014 9:00 am:

 Pension Issues
Dear Mr.SijoyGhosh,

At the outset I sincerely thank you for your frank and convincing replies to my questi ons as well others too. Faith is different from criticism.If I criticise it is not that I have no faith in the Organisation. It only gives chances to correct provided it is correct. To quote an example the PenFed Gen.Sec refusing to take up the anamoly of 7th separately for the past 15 years and connects it to 50% is neither convincing nor acceptable.We criticise his way of reasoning for not taking up the action in time. This does not mean that I have no faith. He should see the merits and demerits and try to correct.One cannot be an on looker when a mistake is done deliberately. So, please understand that those who criticise are persons who have no faith. Mr.Ghosh once again thank you and who ever speaks the truth and does sincerely are not needed in the organisation is a known fact. Hence, I am happy to have a few days touch with you through the web site and appreciate your frank views as reply to the questions. All the best. Yours sincerely ARC
 
Comment: Dear Mr Chandrasekharan,
We think that there is some confusion about your assuming that our friend Sujoy Ghosh's posts in this site, are those of the Administrator. They are not. Sujoy's views are his personal ones. Our view is that of our Association, and reflect our collective view point. We therefore suggest that you reply or interact with individual pensioners separately, and correspond with the Association alone, on this website. You can definitely have dialogues on pension related matters with fellow pensioners. But when there is confusion about which is a personal opinion, and which is the Association's collective opinion, you may first get it clarified. Please keep writing.

A.R.Chandrasekharan (Website) wrote at 12-06-2014 6:33 pm:

 Pension - Sripad Gudi
Dear Sir,

I refer you to Mr.Gudi's mail and join his hands and have the same question. Wehn a person is alive the Bank refuses to pay him pension on the last drawn salary but pays his family pension on the basis of the last drawn salary. Will it be a gesture or good will shown to the family for the services rendered by the retiree. So, it is evident that the Bank is delberately doing the delay tactics to pay the actual pension. PenFed is only a on looker and GS clearly said that if any one is asking he simply tells that we have filed a case and we have to wait for the judgement. So, he has done his job and where we can go and cry for the bed. Perhaps God.

 
Comment: Dear Mr Chandrasekharan,
If you have lost faith on our Federation, you may choose methods other than using this website to condemn it. We believe that the Federation has been striving, within limitations (of not being a trade union) and whatever positive has happened for pensioners so far (like enhancement of the erstwhile ceiling from Rs 1000 to Rs 2400, starting of Family pension, etc.) has happened because of its active efforts, and whatever hasnt happened, hasnt despite its efforts. You may agree, or may not. You are entitled to your views.

Shripad Gudi wrote at 12-06-2014 1:42 pm:

 7th Bipapartite Pensioners - Family Pension
While the 7th pensioner gets his pension based on the 6th BP disposition, the family pension is computed on the basis of 7th BP Scales. Strange! but yet a welcome situation
 
Comment: Dear Shri Gudi,
In order to benefit from such a ridiculously anomalous situation, the pensioner has to die and wait for the spouse to get revised FP.

A.R.Chandrasekharan (Website) wrote at 12-06-2014 1:00 pm:

 8th Retiree Pension consists of 7th salary too
Dear Sir,

I may please be advised how the Bank which rejects the formula of 50/40 on the last drawn salary for7th but takes into calculations the salary of 7th and 8th for the retiree who retired after 31.10.2002.
7th retiree is not entitle pension on his last salary whereas 8th retiree gets the last 12 months which consists of 6 months period in 7th which the Govt did not give approval. How the union and Federation agreed this? Is it not an anamoly Sir.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Chandrasekharan,
You are right about the absurd situation of 7th BP retirees. The plea given by Govt is that it was as per a Bipartite settlement which cant be reversed. It is a fact that the two employees' Federations were parties to that settlement and their representatives put their signatures. In fact, one High Court has recently opined that they will not adjudicate on matters settled in Bipartite Agreements. So much for the contribution of those Federations to the cause of Pensioners. But let us not blame our own Federation.

N.Subramanians (Website) wrote at 12-06-2014 11:19 am:

 In continuation of Mr ARC's communication dt 12-6-2014
Sirs I reproduce below the relevant information sought for by Sri T V Jayakrishnan on 11-6-2014 REF:Elders'Voice Magazine brought OUT BY SBI PENSIONERS' ASSN (Chennai Circle) Oct 2013 issue Editorial Page 6 para 4 <<<< Our bank did make its efforts to remove the above wrong perception . In its proposal dated 30-10-2002, recommending the payment of pension at 50% of pay to all its eligible pensioners,it has furnished in detail how the officials of our bank are placed >The Govt continues to ignore all these reasoned recommendations and enforces its power and authority on our Bank. Even its recent proposal backed up by its Board Resolution for the revision of pension to pre 1-11-1993 pensioners retired drawing pay as per Fifth and Sixth BP Wage settlements is yet to be cleared by the Government >>>
I think that the matter is clear.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Subramanian,
You are right in stating that our Bank management had done their bit, in recommending not only enhanced pension, at various times, but also the enhanced gratuity. However, the Govt. or rather, some bureaucrats have put spanners and frustrated the efforts of pensioners. Let us see what the future holds for us pensioners.

A.R.Chandrasekharan (Website) wrote at 12-06-2014 9:08 am:

 SBI Board Resolution
Dear Sir,

I refer to the mail of Mr.T.V.Jayakrishnan and request him to talk to Mr.Murthy, the General Secretary of the Federationn since he will be the right person to clarify his doubt. Only after getting correct information I have given mail and in case if it is otherwise I stand to correct myself. But I am sure the Reoslution was passed. To stream line the retirees pension up to 1993 this Resolution was passed and on this and the Govt. asked the Bank to furnish scertain documents for verification.
Further, I understand the reason that why the PenFed is not taking up the 7th case separately is due to the occupation of the post of GS in some other circles and EC members in other circles are above scale IV and they do not want to solve the issue for 7th at the existing formula of 50/40 since they are the losers. Will you please through some light on this. with regards
 
Comment: Dear Mr Chandrasekharan,
Let us wait for the outcome of the Fed's dialogues with the Govt and the Chairman. Despite all resolutions and recommendations of the Bank, the Govt has so far proved to be the biggest hurdle in the way of pensioners.

Jayakrishnan T V wrote at 11-06-2014 9:21 pm:

 5th & 6th Bipartite and Board Resolution
I refer to Mr.ARCs mail(11th June 2014-3.50 p.m.). I am not aware whether SBI Board had passed any such resolution in favour of 5th & 6th Bipartite retirees (for enhancement of pension)

Is this not a case similar to what LIC pensioners are fighting for. Their contention is that once a resolution is passed by the Board, the Govt. cannot negative it. I think most of our members are aware that LIC Pensioners got favourable judgement in Rajasthan High Court and now pending in Supreme Court.

Last week they met Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman, Honourable Minister of State, Govt. of India.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Jayakrishan,
As stated by you, the LICI case has still not resulted in any positive outcome. But it is a very relevant case for pensioners in SBI. Let us see what comes out of fresh approaches of our Federation to the Chairman and the new Govt.

A.R.Chandrasekharan (Website) wrote at 11-06-2014 3:50 pm:

 Pension issue of 5th and 6th
Dear Sir
I was all along asking about the fate of 7th only. But whereas the 5th and 6th position is not known till date. The Board of SBI passed a Resolution and forwarded to the then Govt. but it was not apporoved till date. Sir, can a Board of a Premier Bank pass a Resolution without obtaining at least a oral approval. what is the stand of penfed. will it not speak bad of the institution.I hope a Govt. representative wii be present in the meeting. what did our PenFed do in the matter. Leave alone 7th At least PenFed should have taken care of this.But it is silent. Will it be possible for you through some light on this. The number may not be that much when compared with the 7th. At least the PenFed should have taken up the matter with the Chairman and got approval of it. At least they could have had the benefit. Am I right Sir?

 
Comment: Dear Mr Chandrasekharan,
The retirees of Bipartites prior to 7th BP(those who survive) were also given a raw deal as their pension was restricted by ceilings. It was the PenFed's case in the Supreme Court of 1987, which resulted in raising the erstwhile absurd ceiling from Rs 1000 to Rs 2400 and also introduction of Family Pension w.e.f. 1986. Our Fed is also trying its best to get the remaining anomalies of pensioners, including those of the 7th BP, resolved. So let us not lose faith in de Fed.

A.R.Chandrasekharan (Website) wrote at 11-06-2014 11:07 am:

 7th Pension issue
Dear Mr.Ghosh, Good morning. I thank you on behalf of Mr.NS and self for your response without feeling tired in our correspondence. If the Chairman or her representatives represents the ensuing talks to be held on 13th with IBA/Govt/Federations/Finance Ministry and by luck they offer to SBI that 50/40 will be approved what will be the reaction of the PenFed. Will they accept or reject and stand at their own stand. Now the DA case is of course in SC filed by Canara Bank/Bank of Baroda/IOB. However Mr. Jusstice Jain before he laid down the Office gave a verdict on 24th January (date may be wrong) that there should be no discrimination as far as DA is concerned since the prices in the market are not as per post one held in Kallakurich case.But it was set aside by the Chennai High court. But one thing is not known to me whether the High Court has got the mandate or power to give a verdict against the SC is my doubt. However, now the case is in SC. I understand from the petitioner that the SC has given a oral direction to the Managements to pay the DA by themselves without the intervention of SC direction or verdict. I also got confirmed news from the petitioners that the Banks are working on cost and only they await the date of implementation. So, any day the good news may be pronounced. I have no evidence other than what I have stated supra but a reliable news. Will the Federation of ours will at least agree for 50/40 and request DA to be approved. Becuase Mr.Murthy even when he addressed a meeting at Chennai Zonal Office went on sticking to 50% but now coming down from his stand. this he has told me several times that if any one wants they should file a contempt petition against Bank based on 1989 judgement and also a separate case for 50/40 and the Federation will not fight for 7th. Of course, now he may differ.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Chandrasekharan,
We request you to address your posts to us, as this is the official website of our Association. If you want to exchange your views with any fellow pensioners, where our participation is not desired, you may send e mails directly to them. You may keep writing to us on pension related matters.

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 11-06-2014 10:58 am:

 Discrimination 567
Mr.Ns and Admin- The 7th.BPs and discrimination are not in isolation.The 5th and 6th.get included.And highlighting the discrimination is a very major factor.As far as individual appeals are concerned political parties come to power from individual preferences and expectation and not on en bloc expressions.Similarly large number of affected persons appealing for equality does have an impact adding to the group activity with similar objective.As NS has observed can the agenda not be shared thru' such a site and that does not mean that all opinions and views will be catered to.As Mr.NS has mentioned at least,for whatever comfort one derives,one can ventilate one self and this has turned out to be the best meeting place.Sujoy Ghosh
 
Comment: Dear Sujoy,
We are glad to find that you have reiterated that this website is a very good meeting place. We however do not agree that individual representations on collective issued can impact the Govt. or other authorities. Let us strengthen & even influence the voice of the Pen Fed instead of bypassing it.

N.Subramanian (Website) wrote at 11-06-2014 9:31 am:

 7th BP
Sirs Our intention is not to point out that 7th BP retirees are the most affected.The retirees covered by 6th and 5th Bp agreements had also been equally perhaps affected more & the still alive who perhaps may be in their 80s and a few in their nineties.But the number of retirees under 7th BP are more than 25000. The basic pension maximum after a revision in 1989 had not been revised for the past 20 years and after an upward revision has not covered the retirees under 7th 6th and 5th BP agreements. I agree that representation by a collective body ,PENFED will yield results. But no sign of any such thing happening. .In the meantime IBA I understand has called the Bank Federations for talks which it appears is going to take place during the current week. Do we have any idea of the Federations' demands for the Pensioners?.Atleast anything is in their agenda? Whether the SBI working staff federations have consulted us before presenting Pensioners case to MGTS/GOVT/IBA. Whether the PENFED has also been involved in the negotiations not actively atleast as an observer? My only wish is whatever that had happened in the past should not get repeated . If we are unable to get the things done in this favorable new Govt's regime perhaps we may not be able to get the things done at anytime in future. The entire matter now rests with PENFED,Bank Federatins,IBA,SBI Mgt,and Govt and the final outcome depends upon the success of the negotiations. Highly hopeful of a positive final outcome to end the pensioners woes.I am very happy that this READERS WRITE HERE provides a good opprtunity at least to ventilate one's feelings and views for which I thank U much. With regards N SUBRAMANIAN
 
Comment: Dear Mr Subramanian,
Although we are not banking on it, but the demands of the serving employees' federations, for the 10th Bipartite settlement, include the expectations of pensioners.
As many as 33,000 pensioners of 7th bipartite (the number is so large, as it includes the large number of VRS optees) were cheated to accept pension calculated on their pre revised 6th Bipartite salaries.
Our Federation will approach the Govt. and also the Chairman, for resolving the issues which are resolvable.
Please keep writing. Its a pleasure to receive your posts and respond to them.

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 10-06-2014 9:40 pm:

 7th.BPs
Mr.NS and Mr.ARC-You have struck the right chord.The Chairperson will obviously be involved because whether individual appeals are submitted to the Union Govt.or the PenFed meets the FM ,details and opinion will be called for from SBI for ascertaining facts.Whatever has happened in the past cannot also be papered over and without highlighting total facts the impact of request/appeal will be that much reduced.And as both of you have highlighted
meeting the Chairperson/FM/PM need not be delayed and appointments could be sought for whatever be the agenda.The only catch is that we,the 7th.BPs are a reducing breed and our need has assumed that much urgency.Sujoy Ghosh
 
Comment: Dear Sujoy,
We reiterate that whether it is the Chairman, or the PM, or FM, no individual representation on a collective cause, is likely to make an impact. Remedy is possible only through a collective and representative body.
The Federation will make this fresh approach very soon. As far as the reduction in the breed is concerned, the entire breed of pensioners is in the hit list, not just 7th Bipartite pensioners. But if its a question of gross anomaly in fixation of their pension, their issue stands out, even in comparison to the earlier pensioners, who are reducing at a higher rate.

A.R.Chandrasekharan (Website) wrote at 10-06-2014 12:23 pm:

 Pension 7th Retirees
Dear Sir,

I sincerely thank you for your kind aMy knd sincere response to my questions. Good. I give my best to members though I am not a committee or EC member at Chennai Circle. My keen interest in the matter makes me to contact or collect information which our Circle never does. Let us wait and see but one thing is sure that unless PenFed takes some effective steps nothing will move. To meet the Chairman why should they delay. to the best of my knowledge the 7th problem was solved long by Mr.Nadaf but own colleagues spoilt it. Before 9th concluded it was solved. Bad luck spoilt the whole exercise. Sir, please accept my sincere thanks and you cannot give better reply than what you have given and once again I thank yoou Mr.sujoy Gosh.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Chandrasekharan,
We are fortunate to have such pensioners like you as active participants in our website. There is no point in looking forward and ruing the chances lost. Let us look ahead. It is a pleasure to respond to your posts. Please keep writing.

N.Subramanian (Website) wrote at 10-06-2014 9:00 am:

 7th BP
Mr Sujoy My only concern is that on no account Our Chairperson should be bye-passed and only after reaching consensus on all the issues relating to the pensioners on priority basis the PENFED should approch the GOVT for a joint discussion. On no account we should club the 10th wage talk settlement issue with the settlement of pensioners' issues as the former is a never ending process and how long it will take to conclude the settlement that only GOD knows.There is a proverb that you should strike the iron when it is red hot. No time should be lost- the earlier it is better. I request the PENFED to give top priority for solving our issues and bring the matter to an end at the earliest.N>SUBRAMANIAN
 
Comment: Dear Mr Subramanian,
You are right. The Pensioners' Federation will hopefully, meet the Chairman and the new Govt. ministers, very soon. If 10th Bipartite settlement does any good to pensioners, it is welcome. But under no circumstances, should we link it to the talks with the Chairman and the new Govt.
We strongly feel that individual approaches arising from sheer frustration, may be understandable, but such representations do not make much impact. Only the collective strength of our 1.3 lac strong Federation can successfully negotiate the demands of pensioners. We had relied perhaps too long on the two serving employees' Federations for too long a time.

A.R.Chandrasekharan (Website) wrote at 09-06-2014 9:08 pm:

 Pension - 7th Bipartite
Dear Sir,
I thank you for your kind response.I still unable to understand why the PenFed is not openly coming out to support the 7th retirees and trying to convince that once the 50% is solved the 7th gets automatic relief.The PenFed is also a party in the case filed by Hyderabad Circle retired leader MrLakshmi Narasaiah. This fact was not brought out even in 184/2011. Mr.Murthy told that the Federation has not filed any case of its own in any other court and only impleaded in the Hyderabad Case. Is it not a supressin of act and if the Court comes to know about it and dismisses the case stating that they could wait until the case is completed.What will be the position for 50/40 at least. Mr.Umesh Sharma has given a mail stating that the there was a discussion with the Bank and feed back is on the positive side and he will come back with good news by the end of the month. Can you through some light on this please. Now time is ripe and when the PenFed will form a committee and meet the chairman? If the Chairman agrees and assures that she will get the approval for the letter sent on 19th June 2006 will be PenFed agree and solve the problem of 7th or will it reject her offer come back to square number one. also there will be a meeting on the 13th of this month. Will there be any discussion over the 7th retirees pension? Will UFBU be steady in achieveing pension for the 7th? Whether the Memorandum submitted by the 3 unions on 16th April will have any effect Please advise. .
 
Comment: Dear Mr Chandrasekharan,
You have asked a wide variety of question, all very valid. But its difficult to respond on behalf of the Federation. So far, we have replied on the basis of the tentative plans of our Federation. The Supreme Court petition had consciously avoided mention of 7th Bipartite pensioners, as there were numerous cases pending in different High Courts, and filing a petition on the same matter would not have been permissible. But the crux of the case is seeking 50% of last drawn average salary as pension for the pensioners. This would automatically solve the problem of all pensioners, including 7th Bipartite pensioners.
The dialogue with the Chairman and the new Govt will commence soon, and continue with the progress of the court cases. We cannot clarify beyond this from our Association. We do hope that this response has been of some help to you.

N.subramanian (Website) wrote at 09-06-2014 7:02 pm:

 7th BP
I refer to my views communicated on 8th and by way of further clarification I want to say that I referred to only the SBI Award Staff and Sup.staff Fedns and not the PENFED as PENFED is not one of the signatories to the 8th and the 9th BP agreements. In fact the Fedns should have fought with the Mgt/Govt and also shd have gone to the court as ultimately the worst affected are the retirees who were hitherto the active members of the Fedns until their retirement. Unfortunately the Fedns have let them down very badly because of which the PENFED has to fight on behalf of the aggrieved . Thank you. Kindly keep the members informed of all the developments thru this column which I find very useful for ventilating the members' feelings and also in helping them to get clarification to their various doubts. With regards N.Subramanian
 
Comment: Dear Mr Subramanian,
Thanks for appreciating our efforts. We are all striving in our own ways, for the same cause. Reduction of suffering for pensioners. Please keep in touch.

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 09-06-2014 4:02 pm:

 Posts on this site
My post on the observation of Mr.Dipak Kumar Basu of the 7th.June has been withdrawn/deleted..Sujoy Ghosh
 
Comment: Dear Sujoy,
Please appreciate that without showing any disrespect to anyone, we do not want this website to become a platform for settling personal differences. We had no option but to withdraw your post, as it would have set off a chain of posts. We have been compelled to edit out a part of this post too, for the same reason.
Let us all channelise our efforts towards one and the only cause, viz. reduction of suffering of pensioners. This should not become a quarelling ground. We are sure you will appreciate. Do keep writing.

N.Subramanian (Website) wrote at 08-06-2014 8:11 pm:

 7th BP
Ref invited to the views of Sri ARC and the clarifications furnished.The Pension fund Rules of the Bank provide for 50% of the average pay drawn and proposal for payment at 50% was forwarded originally by the Bank in 2002 itself however no action was initiated by the Govt on the Bank's recommendations. It was then revised and fresh recommendations were submitted by the Bank in 2006 for payment of pension on 50%/40% formula may be the revision at the instance of the Govt ie the revised formula was imposed on the Bank by the Govt which was not objected to by both the workoing staff fedns for reasons known to them only. However the revision was made applicable only for those retired on or after 1-10 2002 0nly which had in effect excluded the persons retired under 7th BP Scale. No revision of pension,no DA neutralisation were the main anomolies caused due to the above. The PENFED was forced to legal remedy as the MOF stated that the matter had already been dealt with and it had to be treated as closed. Once payment of pension at 50/40 % formula is accepted there will be discrimination amongst the retirees one class receiving at 50% and another class receiving at 40% which ultravires the provisions of pension fund rules. This will be a permanent damage and it can not be reversed in future and the effect will be carried over to the future generation of retirees which will be the greatest injustice that the PENFED will be doing to all the SBI pensioners. Now there is a change in the Govt with a positive outlook which has to be encashed by the PENFED. Our Chairman is favorably inclined to consider the Pensioners'appeal as she is well aware of the injustice done to us. Best thing now to do in my view is to take a delegation to the Chairman in the matter first convince her with our demands and thereafter approach MOF/PMO with an appeal for an earlier solution to our problems instead of pursuing the court cases and depending much on them. With regards N.Subramanian
 
Comment: Dear Mr Subramanian,
The Fed has never accepted the 50%/40% formula, arbitrarily imposed on pensioners. The court case was filed specifically to ensure that through implementation of Rule 23(i), and declaration of Rule 23(ii), which permits reduction of pension or imposition of ceilings, as ultra vires.
Our Fed has already decided to approach the Chairman and the new Govt to remedy the ills of pensioners, primarily the injustice meted out to the 7th Bipartite pensioners, who are still getting pension on the basis of their 6th Bipartite salaries.
The court cases can be withdrawn only after the benefits are made available to the pensioners.

A.R.Chandrasekharan (Website) wrote at 08-06-2014 4:50 pm:

 7th Bipartite Pension
Dear Sir,
Why not the PenFed First solve the issue of 7th and then proceed with other court cases since the prayer in the 1875/ 2013 has a different prayer. Next, the GS of PenFed earlier wanted all the cases to be poold at once court i.e.Sc so that one judgement will clear the whoseissue. Now he tells that no case should be attached since it takes a long time to; issue notices and then proceed.What is the stand of the PenFed. Will it be below the dignity of the PenFed if it approaches the chairman and obtains the approval of the proposal sent on 19th June 2006 which states that Rs.14240/- as cut off stage and above that 40%. If they delay still then the 100 days programme of the Govt. will come to an end and it may take its own time. In the name of solving the issue for all the 30k to 35k pensioners are put to hardship for no fault of their. Also, PenFed cannot claim its unawareness of; the 50% policy till 16th March of 2011 for proceeding to SC under Article 32 which could have been done earlier.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Chandrasekharan,
1. The Fed had delayed filing the case in Supreme Court on the assurance of the 2 serving employees' Feds that the 9th Bipartite will resolve the injustice & anomalies of pension.
2. The case seeks 50% pension for all, and thus covers the 7th Bipartie pensioners too.
3. While the court cases continue, the Fed has already decided to approach the Chairman again, as also the new Govt with such matters as the gross injustice meted to the 7th Bipartite retirees
4. Ckubbing of cases sounds logical, but causes inordinate delay.
Please do not lose faith and hope in the collective strength of the Fed.

Dipak Kumar Basu wrote at 07-06-2014 10:24 pm:

 Utilisation of this WEB SITE
It seems this web-site is being used by some of the pensioners to settle their personal acrimony and also to highlight their wisdom. Any pensioner may raise any of his doubts and queries in this site and it is expected that it would be clarified by the Association.
 
Comment: Dear Dipak,
You are absolutely right. This is the official website of our Association. This should not be used for settling personal scores and discussing personal agenda. One is free to criticize the functioning or the decisions of the Association or Federation. But denigrating or belittling the unity and collective strength of our Association is not expected from wise and aged pensioners. Any malicious or harmful comment will be deleted.

SUBHASH CHANDRA HAZRA wrote at 07-06-2014 5:15 pm:

 POSTPONE OF ELECTION
IT SHOULD NOT BE DESIRABLE TO GO TO THE COURT
FOR POSTPONE THE ELECTION INSTED OF THEY SHOULD TAKE PART IN ELECTION AND AFTER WIN. IN DEMOCRATIC WAY THEY SHOULD ESTABLISH THEIR GRIEVANCES. IT WILL HARM OUR UNITY AND
STRENGTH.
 
Comment: Dear Subhas,
We entirely agree with your views and the underlying feelings. It is no crime to differ in views and contest an election. But slinging mud and dragging the Association to Court, on whatever pretext, and thereby lowering the esteem of pensioners, cannot be supported.

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 06-06-2014 10:35 pm:

 Elections-Court case
Admin-Looks like a bit of a mess! Please keep a copy of the petition ready,if possible, and I will collect it on Thursday.Alternatively a scan copy could be sent to my e-mail address. I am asking for it for transparency not to get involved in any litigation.I am the last person to spend any money on court cases.Kindly let me know.Sujoy Kumar Ghosh
 
Comment: Dear Sujoy,
This is unfortunate and was definitely avoidable. But, trust us. Its not a mess. The harassment caused by the last minute postponement of the election, is indeed regrettable. But as far as the Association's activities and broader issues, nothing is affected.
You are most welcome to come to our office and see for yourself the contents of the petition.

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 06-06-2014 1:09 pm:

 SBI PenAss,BenCir
Mr.Tushar Kumar Mukherjee-your post of 5th.June 2014.Without having a look at the petition it would not be proper for anyone to offer any comment or observation.Since the SBIPA,BC are the other party can I request them to post a copy of the petition filed and then come to some conclusion about it being right or wrong.It appears that a panel of candidates are being put forth/propogated instead of individual candidates.After the elections are over the elected candidates may themselves elect the office bearers.Any way a look at the petition is desirable.Sujoy Kumar Ghosh
 
Comment: Dear Sujoy,
We have received a notice from the advocate of two candidates, who had filed the petition. This notice has quoted an extract from the ad interim order of injunction, delivered ex parte. Without debating on the contents of the petition (which will not be proper too) it would suffice to say that differences of opinion among pensioners should not have reached the Court. A lot of harassment and unnecessary expenses have been imposed on the Association and its members. Litigation expenses on this issue is very avoidable. The petition is too voluminous to be uploaded on this site. Members desirous of getting more information, may visit the Association office.

N.Subramanian (Website) wrote at 06-06-2014 12:39 pm:

 7tt BP
Hullo
 

A.R.Chandrasekharan (Website) wrote at 05-06-2014 9:49 pm:

 7th Bipartite Pension
Dear Sir.
Our Chairman met the previous FM and had a discussion about the 7th and asked the out flow of the amount etc. Why not our PenFed meet our Chairman and request her to take up the matter with the FM and proper explanation about the injustice done to 7th by the previous Finance Minister Chidambaram and the intention of the Bank to pay for 7th on the last drawn salary as per the proposal sent during April 2006 recommending the JMG scale of Rs.14240 with a minimum of Rs.7120/- Why PenFed is not making an attempt on this? She could also still impress by proving that the previous Government neither rejected nor approved. the Chennai High Court also given a judgement advising the Govt. to consider and approve the proposal. This will strengthen the case. Or if the Gove. withdraws the appeal on this ourder the problem will be solved. Why not PenFed resort to this way to solve the 7th issue
 
Comment: Dear Mr Chandrasekharan,
You are absolutely right. This is what our Federation, has decided to do, according to information available with us. Let us not lose hope.

TN Ramachandran Nair wrote at 05-06-2014 8:59 pm:

 Pension issue of 7th Bipartite persons
When I mentioned about SC Rindani, I only meant that his inclusion will facilitate better in bringing out our problems particularly of the 7th bipartite pensioners. Yes, when the delegation goes to meet PM/FM naturally a well drafted representation explaining the issues clearly needs to be handed over. There is no two opinion about this.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Nair,
You have rightly stressed the need for making a strong and effective representation to the new Govt, for rectifying the injustice meted out to 7th Bipartite pensioners. A collective decision by the Federation, about the contents of the memorandum, will obviously be better than any individual effort.

TUSHAR KUMAR MUKHERJEE wrote at 05-06-2014 8:46 pm:

 ELECTION OF SBIPA (BC) - INJUNCTION
On receiving an application from a member, City Civil Court, Kolkata, ordered an injunction over the ensuing election process of SBIPA (BC). Personally I am not in favour of such move. Only the advocates of both the parties are beneficial out of such court cases. Even if the applicant gets a verdict in his favour , what will happen ? Some minor changes in the election process - nothing more. But such court case deprieves a large number of members of their franchise for quite some time. I feel that one should think more seriously the pros and cons of it before taking such step.
 
Comment: Dear Tushar,
You have voiced the feelings of a huge majority of pensioners, who are disappointed that despite such elaborate arrangements, they will not be able to cast their votes, indefinitely. Lot of legal expenses, and lot of energy of elderly pensioners, will now be utilised not against the Govt or IBA, but against fellow pensioners. Who will benefit ?

Sudhir Suman Kumaria (Chandigarh Circle) wrote at 05-06-2014 3:27 pm:

 New-Form-SBI-REMBS-Reimbursement, Claim Form by Near Relatives of Deceased Member & list of SBI Holiday Homes
We have uploaded the following file, which you can download from SBI Pensioners’ Association (Chandigarh Circle) official website: http://www.sbipensionerschd.com/

1. New-Form-SBI-REMBS-Reimbursement of Domiciliary Treatment.
2. Claim Form by Near Relatives of Deceased Member of SBI-REMBS.
3. Latest list of SBI Holiday Homes.
 

N.Subramanian (Website) wrote at 05-06-2014 11:41 am:

 7th
The need of the hour which is more urgent and important is settlement of 7th BP retirees issues. The salary updation, gratuity issue are neverthless important but the issues are to be solved for the whole banking industry as the issues involved have to be taken up by all the REtired banking Pensioners Fedns. Let us not club such issues with the present issues relating to 7th BP retirees and make the process of settlement delayed. Revision of Pension based on the 7th BP scale, DA neutralisation for 7th bp retirees are the most important issues to be solved and if possible the 50% of Basic Pension for which the PENFED has filed a suit should also be settled thru bilateral talks. If these issues can be settled that will be a great achievement for the PENFED. The effective retrospective date of implementation also has to be arrived at and concluded so that there will be some meaning for the long wait. With best wishes N>SUBRAMANIAN
 
Comment: Dear Mr Subramanian,
Thanks for your wishes. We are all waiting for the injustices meted out to pensioners, to be rectified at the earliest. Time is running out for many of us. Yet, we cannot give up.

Mihir Kumar Das wrote at 05-06-2014 12:21 am:

 Restrospective effect of enhanced Gratuity.
Dear Sir
It was our expectation to get the enhanced
Gratuity,those who have retired prior 24/05/2010.But it is our ill-luck we were deprived of that. But the pensioners other than the Banking Industry, they are lucky enough and they got the same with effect from January, 2006. Some pensioners have filed W.P. in Kerala High Court but the fate of the case under cloud.
It is my appeal that the matter may please be taken up by our Pensioners' Federation with a priority basis and thus a huge number of pensioners will be benefitted.
thaking You,
Mihir Kuamr Das.
 
Comment: Dear Mihir,
Thanks for writing. Yes, we are equally concerned about the pensioners who have been deprived of gratuity. But we happen to get our gratuity under Gratuity Act, and not under Gratuity Rules applicable to Govt employees. Other bank employees have got it under Service Gratuity.
The Kerala High Court case is pending before another single Judge bench, after the earlier lady judge refused to give an order.

K.MAHENDRAN wrote at 04-06-2014 9:47 pm:

 Pending case of enhasement of Gratituy at KERALA High court
Please give me latest position of WP of enhancement of Gratituy,long pending in kerala High court for retirees before 24/05/2010--- mahendran (AP)
 
Comment: Dear Mr Mahendran,

This case was not filed by any Association or by our Federation. It was filed by a group of individual pensioners, affected by the non implementation of enhanced gratuity with retrospective effect.
The case was heard by a single Judge bench in Kerala High Court, but no verdict was given and the case was assigned to another single judge bench by the Chief Justice. It is lying pending since long.

Ashok Roy wrote at 04-06-2014 4:18 pm:

 Holiday Home booking
I wish to book our Holiday Home at Delhi and Hardwar in the month of December,2014.How,when and to whom,I need to apply?
 
Comment: Dear Ashok,
You have to apply through your pension paying branch, to the Secretary, Circle Welfare Committee, SBI, Kol LHO (8th Floor) in the prescribed format, just like serving employees.

< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 >


go to top